Cook, Arthur B.: Zeus: a study in ancient religion (Band 3,1): Zeus god of the dark sky (earthquake, clouds, wind, dew, rain, meteorits): Text and notes (Cambridge, 1940)

The relation of rain to Zeus 329

agrees with Petersen. Dion Cass. 71. 10 was in part a Christian forgery by Xiphilinos.
Had the emperor's letter really ascribed the miracle to the prayers of Christians, the sequel
Would have been very different. The figment was but a Christian anticipation of final
victory.

A. von Domaszewski 'Die Chronologie des bellum Germanicum et Sarmaticum
166—175 n< Qj,. > ;n the Nene Heidelberger Jahrbiicher 1895 v. 123 returns to the
charge—'Dies ist das Kriegsjahr 171, und in dieses Jahr fallt das Regenwunder. Ein
echter Bericht dariiber ist bei Dio erhalten 71, 8. Er ist an falsche Stelle ins Jahr 174
Scriickt, um der sicher christlichen Interpolation des Capitels 71, 10 willen.' Ib. n. 2
J^on Kampf oder Abwehr ist keine Rede, so wenig bei Dio 71, 8. Es betet niemand.

er Wolkenbruch ist ein Naturereignis. Der Regengott ist Notus, genau wie Ovid ihn
schlilden' [sic],

Th. Mommsen 'Das Regenwunder der Marcus-Saule' in Hermes 1895 xxx. 90—106
steers a mid course between Skylla and Charybdis. The alleged marvel is neither pure
ction (Petersen and Domaszewski) nor absolute fact(Harnack). Domaszewski's chronology
Wrong; the miraculous rain must be dated in the summer of 174, not 171. Equally
Wrong is Domaszewski's assumption that Dion Cass. 71. 10 is a Christian interpolation,
ne imperial letter cited by Tertullian was genuine and did actually tell—though without
'on s extravagant rhetoric—how a great thunderstorm saved the Romans, man and
^ ast, when they were perishing of thirst, and did much damage to their foes. This
Th • 1'terary tradition agrees well enough with the scene represented on the column.
e "ghtning is there omitted because the principal agent was the rain, and the rain
npears as a divine figure intervening to rescue the Roman host ('Die Darstellung des
^ngottes ist eine so eigenartige und so ungewohnliche, dass der Bildhauer unzweifelhaft
^ , 11 die officielle Auffassung des Vorganges, den Regen wapa 0eoO hat zur Anschauung
Sc^n?en wollen. Wenn die Blitze vermisst werden, von denen der Kaiserbrief wahr-
ri„.e!n''°'1 auch sprach, so ist die Ursache einfach die, dass, wenn als leitende Gottheit
upiter fulminator dargestellt worden ware, der Regen zur Nebensache werden musste

q , Wunder seine Sonderart eingebiisst hatte'). The emperor attributed his victory to
PoscA ^"ass" 10 **" Kt" ^pu- ®tov XcwSdj/wc, Euseb. chron. p. 172 Schoene = Chron.
no A 48' Dindorf) Sfifipos in tou 6eov iyiveTo), not to a specific god, and made

^liefs'11'0" °^ ^"nr'st'an Prayers- Later writers particularised according to their own
Chal l' ^aSans would naturally think of magic (Lamprid. v. Ant. Heliogab. 9. 1 per
or Ju[je°S et niagos) and suggested Arnouphis (Dion Cass. 71. 8f., Souid. s.v. "Appoints)
of Cou nUS (S°uid. s.vv. "Apvoi/0is, 'lov\iav6s (i. 2. 1007, 14 ff. Bernhardy)). Christians
So'dier Se tnou2nt otherwise. Tertullian supposes an answer to the prayers of Christian
Was r^ii, 5 Christianorum forte militum precationibus impetrato imbri). Apollinaris
it)> " an early writer (not a mere invention of Eusebios, as Domaszewski would have
"tpavv fl.fne ''Me credibility—witness his blunder about the origin of the name

°P6Xos (Euseb. hist. eccl. 5. 5. 4: supra p. 325 n. 3, p. 326 n. t).
^arcus cterse;n.resumes l,le fight with a second article, 'Blitz- und Regenwunder an der
n°W ad . e' ln tne Rhein. Mus. 1895 1. 453—474, adding three photographic cuts. He
was mistaken in regarding the Christian tradition with all its five
He does 327 n. 2) as having arisen merely from a misunderstanding of the column.

a"thors dCny tll£ existence of an imperial letter, but treats the one cited by Christian
Sofern sieS a fol'gery ('Nur den Brief, auf welchen sich die christlichen Autoren, besser
attack a6 darauf beziehn, habe ich fUr gefalscht erklart'). He launches a sharp
Certainly8amSt b°th the metno<1 and the results of Harnack's investigation, and he
Vers- ^)«COreS S°me successes- F°r instance, according to Euseb. chron. p. 172 Schoene
present in *' a""' Abn 2188 and Hieron. in Euseb. ann. Abr. 2189 M. Aurelius was not
ky the evidPerS°n ^ 'he rain"storm> but only his legate Pertinax, and this is borne out
°f tne scene^"06 °f columnar relief- Petersen goes on to give a more exact description
ft0ltl dr0UMu°" °olumn- He sn°«"s that the Romans were represented first as suffering
Storm. whfl ' lhen as drir>king, and later still as trying to protect themselves against the
e their foes were overwhelmed by the flood. The notion that the enemy was